Talk:Walmart

Old talk needs to be archived, however, some of the talk appears to not be in chronological order.

Feb 1, 2005 NPOV Issues

Some NPOV issues: Category: Corporate Abuse...Really? Is walmart in the same leauge as Dow Chemical and the Bhopal incident, worldcom, Enron? "Links" Section..Why are all the articles and documentaries listed negative towards walmart? Why should articles be linked anyway? every entry in wikipedia would become huge if we linked every article and news story about every entry. Why is a blog linked, who decided that was a trustworthy source? I think some critical sites, not articles, and then WM's corporate sites should be linked. "Criticism" section..It lists criticism, but no rebuttal or counter-points. "Financial Success" , "History", and "Business" sections. Not POV issues, but couldn't these be condensed and made a little bit easier to read and fluid instead of jumping around? Please comment on these, everyone is making these edits but not actually discussing anything. joe 18:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

First, see the timeline discussion below. Also, I think the bit about the rating in the diversity section should be in the criticism section, and there should be the criticism there, but there should also be the other point of view to balance it out. I also think that the only links that should be at the bottom are to walmart's sites, and perhaps to the walmart watch site. sprawl busters isn't against walmart only, and the article linkings just seem to not be needed. joe 21:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

timeline

The entries on the timeline about the mexican pyramids and the bit about the chinese buy local program is not neutral. its obviously meant to criticize the company. joe 02:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The decision-making process for including a fact is pretty simple. Intent doesn't factor into it - is it accurate? Is it phrased neutrally? Is it relevant? That's about all we consider. As far as I can tell, the two facts you removed are accurate, do not express a POV, and are relevant to Wal-Mart. Therefore they should stay. If you feel their inclusion is negative, a better response would be to add other facts. How about their community grants program? Rhobite 04:01, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering A) why a certain store opening is mentioned. Wal-mart will open over 300 units worldwide. Why is this one the only one mentioned? Also, anyone with any kind of common sense can see that the quip that they run a "Buy China" program is aimed at hitting the "outsourcing" nerve. joe 04:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would even be in favor of removing the "Reached $100mln in charitable contributions" Fact. That's not even really relevant.

As I said, the aim is irrelevant. The pyramid thing got a lot of press, so it's notable. The China thing might not fit in a timeline but don't just delete it, please. Rhobite 05:37, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

What? The aim is totally relevant. If the aim of posting a certain fact or figure is to make someone think walmart is a bad company then its not NPOV. Now I see that there is a second timeline entry on "walmart builds a $18 bln chinese product inventory" or something like that. I'd like to see some sources. Its obvious that those are just meant to be predjudicial against the company. They belong in the criticisms article. Why is there not a post that shows that they opened a store in a vacant building in South Central LA, and where is the information about how much US products they sell? You can't post one side and not post the other. joe 20:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because the store in South Central was hotly protested by the community, and you'd think it was just put in to make Wal-Mart look bad. If you can find a product in Wal-Mart that actually is made in the US< put it in... the point is that Wal-Mart's campaigns try to give the impression that they are all-american and sell american-made products when in fact most of their inventory was NOT made in America. Not mentioning that fact would be highly POV. Pedant 19:34, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

No current Wal-Mart advertising or marketing campaign in the United States purports that Wal-Mart sells only US Made goods. They no longer run the "Bring it home to the USA" ads/campaign. Your post shows that its meant to be POV. I think it has a place in the criticism section, but not in the main article. Wal-Mart sells plenty of things made in America and other countries. There's no mention on the Target article how much of its inventory is made in China or any other country. joe 00:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

walmart teotihuacan wasn't protested by the teotihuacans was protested by globaliphobics many of which weren't even Mexicans.

^---This person is lying between their teeth, or they are not Mexican. They don't know what they speak of because many people in the community protested this store, independently of any foreigners!

Other Businesses

In the history of walmart, they have operated other stores, such as Hypermart*USA, dot Discount Drugs, Sav-Co (I think that was the name) home improvement warehouses, and helen's arts and crafts (all in the US). They should be mentioned somewhere joe

Openings

In the history timeline, are the entries on opening a store near mexican pyramids and the quip about buying $12bln in chinese goods and running a "buy chinese" campaign needed? They seem to throw the neutrality off quite a bit. Also on the external links, are so many critical links needed? I think perhaps a link to walmart.com, walmartstores.com, the yahoo profile link, and the walmart watch link are all thats needed. I think that particularly the CNN/money link and sprawl busters links should be removed. sprawlbusters isn't against only walmart

well, about the walmart teotihuacan and as a sidenote, the teotihuacans (of small town nearby called teotihuacan) did wanted the walmart and did kicked out the globalphobics that camped in the ruins, many of whom where actually foreigners, Mexicans are actually in favor of the walmart stores and the fact the this one is 3 kilometers or so of some ruins isn't offensive.

Greeters

"Each Wal-Mart store has an employee, often an older person, known as a "greeter", whose primary responsibility is to welcome people to the store. One Wal-Mart training video encourages employees to think of themselves not as employees but as "associates" and their superiors as "servant leaders.""

This is inaccurate. One training video does not encourage this. The entire wal-mart enterprise is based on it. Employees are not referred to as employees. Also, the bit about the people greeter shouldn't say "often an older person". Perhaps a better wording would be:

"Wal-Mart refers to its employees as 'associates'. It also encourages management to think of themselves as 'servant leaders'. Each Wal-Mart store has an associate that serves as a 'people greeter'. This person greets each customer as they enter the store."

I found it surprising that Wal-Mart employees "Greeters" of any kind. I have been to 3 different Wal-Mart store approximately 30 times total, and have never been greeted. Is it true that ALL stores employee such a greeter? jimaginator

Wal-Mart Supercenters have two greeters, actually 3 when the garden center is open. Probably best to say "Each Wal-Mart store has an associate at each entrance that serves..." newkai 05:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that it's been brought up... although I have frequently heard it asserted that Wal*Mart has greeters and that everyone is greeted on entering the store, I, too, have never been greeted at a Wal*Mart. I frequently shop at one in a suburb of Boston, probably twice a month averge, and occasionally shop at one in a very small town in Wisconsin (population 3,000). It would be interesting to know more about this. I sometimes do see Wal*Mart employees standing in the vicinity of the entrance, and have always interpreted them as performing a security function (i.e. watching for shoplifting). I've never noticed them greeting anybody else, either. Theory A: Perhaps they only greet people who deliberately make eye contact with them, and in parts of the country where it is not customary to make eye contact with strangers the greetings do not occur? Theory B: Perhaps not all the things that management thinks happen actually happen?

In contrast, the checkout clerks at the local K-Mart tell me "thankyouforshoppingatKmart" virtually 100% of the time. Not that it gives me much of a warm fuzzy, particularly since every cash register is conspicuously decorated with a sticker saying "TYFSAK." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

this is more than likely due to just the associates or the store doing something non-standard. They are not looking for shoplifting. Company policy is for a greeter at each door when the store is open. they are there to greet customers and help with questions. this is required in all stores. any deviation from that is a deviation from company policy.

For what it's worth, the local Asda to me has had the recent addition of a person who stands at the door looking bored and faintly embarassed. I wondered what he was doing there (by the way, he was older than most of the other employees in the shop at the time), but this section of the article explains it. sheridan 13:43, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

longevity of employment

"33% of the employees are temporary" Are 33% of the employee temporary during the Christmas Season or is this the case throughout the whole year? I know it is a standard practice to hire tempory workers such as cashier for the Christmas Season when the customer count is higher or in the lawn and garden department during the peak spring and summer months. Is the figure true for the full year at Walmart?

WRT the last paragraph, this is good additional information, but it needs some copyediting to read more fluently and comply more fully with the NPOV. --Robert Merkel

That last paragraph need more proof than just saying that there was a TV progam that said such and such. You do not even remember what progam you saw it on. Back these statement up.

npov again

In my opinion, the 1st view lacks NPOV, while the 2nd does have NPOV (with the exception of the aforementioned last paragraph, whose problem is not so much NPOV as citing an unknown TV show - taking out any citation might be a good idea as I've heard this from several sources.) Some of the stuff in the 1st view is informative and should be merged with the 2nd view but other (like the stuff about helpful staff) is just kind of silly. - Eean

largely done. --Robert Merkel

The usual Wikipedia practice is not simply remove other people's writing but move the disputable topics into the talk page so the idea is not buried. I wonder why some people try to hide the topic, perhaps further discussion may open a can of worms. If you do this because you own Wal-mart's stocks, then you don't have NPOV, you have a hidden agenda! I have put the questionable paragraph back here so that someone can resurrect it with proof.

I myself have seen the TV show mentioned by the original author. Though I cannot remember the details of the TV show, it does not mean it did not exist. It was on a US network TV show like 20/20 quite some time ago, it could be several years back. If it was reported by a major network, I trust it had some truth to the investigation.

I bet if this paragraph is allowed to sit here for some time, sooner or later someone with a good memory would be able to quote what that TV show was. It would be nice if someone can find the transcript to the TV show that exposed the Wal-Mart's problem.

Someone attempted to hide the following:

In all competitive business, the company that can provide the best products to the consumers at the lowest price is the winner. However, a TV investigative program (such as 20/20 or Date Line or 60 Minutes) did a special report on the business practices of Wal-Mart some time ago. The investigative reporters learned that Wal-Mart's strategy is to open a store close to a town and drive the local stores out of business. Then they abandon that site and move to another town in the same region. They move through the area, eliminating the local businesses, then create one store serving multiple towns. The TV report showed the trail of the abandoned sites Wal-Mart has gone through. The locals were happy when a new store opened just a few miles away, but after the local businesses closed, the Wal-Mart moved an inconvenient distance away. The usual complaint is not about the presence of the Wal-Mart stores nor the merchandises it sells at low prices, but about the perceived "betrayal" when Wal-Mart eliminates local businesses but then moves away in betrayal. This practice does not affect major metropolitan areas that can support multiple Wal-Marts, but in less densely populated areas, local economies have suffered.
If someone still remember that TV program, please give some pointer to its transcript.

Retail Web site: http://www.walmart.com/

Corporate Web site: http://www.walmartstores.com/

I'm not sure if this is the show that was being refered to, but at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/ PBS's Frontline did a report "Is Wal-Mart Good for America". You can stream the broadcast from that link. -dsuriano

I'm the person who removed the last paragraph. If you notice I added a sentence which in my opinion summarises the key points of the deleted paragraph. The fact that an investigative program did a story on Wal-mart isn't particularly noteworthy, except as an aid to jog people's memory. In this case, mention of it belongs on the talk page, IMHO, rather than as part of the main article. You will also note that I removed the corporate propaganda version that was placed above the text. As far as my motives for the edit, I merely point out that I do not live in a country with Wal-mart stores. --Robert Merkel

Staffing is low, with most purchases simply being brought to supermarket-style cashier lanes on shopping trolleys, and the expertise of the staff in the products they sell is variable at best. [Staffing low? Based or compared to what? Wal-mart staffs its stores with many employees. For example my department, lawn and garden, has at least two people in the department during the slows times and during the heavier buisness times of the year it can have up to 15 people working in the department on the weekend day. I do not consider that low staff. An average sized store has about 250 employees and a average sized supercenter has about 500 to 600 employees.] As well as this, its sheer size gives it the ability to discount, selling at a loss until competitors run out of resources, at which point its monopoly position allows it to raise prices. It is regularly accused of such tactics (which are illegal in some jurisdictions), and is disliked by others because the homogeneity in retailing it symbolises. Others refute the figures, stating that Wal-mart's prices remain low even where it has a monopoly, and view the complaints about homogeneity as impractical sentimentality. [this needs rewritten. What proof is there for some of these statements.] Other criticisms of Wal-Mart include its alleged propensity to kill off all competition from local stores, then shut down its stores in smaller towns, leaving residents of those areas no choice but to drive long distances to purchase essential items. [Where and when does this happen. Give me a list of towns that walmart has done this in.]

Having a current Wal-mart employee going through this article to remove any negative criticism against Wal-mart is surely not NPOV. You might as well copy and paste the company's website here, that would be all positive.

In case someone wants a citation for the legal department

http://www.fallingmerchandise.com/acrobat/trialmag4-00.asp

Here's a web site with relevance to the article

http://www.sprawl-busters.com/

The fact that there are people who do not like Wal-Mart needs to be mentioned.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the world's largest retailer.

Wal-mart is now the #2 grocery chain in the nation, behind Kroger's?

I think this came from background information in a NTY article. I suppose sales would be the measure. Fred Bauder 16:05 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Are these in terms of profit? Sales? Number of employees? Number of stores? What? Are there references for these figures?

There are other figures in the article as well. Ideally, a source would be cited for each of them.

-- Ryguasu

Atually statements like Walmart is the biggest retailer in the world and the largest company in America don't really need to be cited by specific source. They are just included for the mythical reader from Mars. Fred Bauder 16:05 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

The stores sell groceries and a broad range of other products, including, but not limited to, clothes, consumer electronics, outdoor equipment, toys, hardware, and books

This implies that Wal-Mart is chiefly a grocer, and only secondarily everything else. Is this really accurate? Do all Wal-Marts even have groceries?

-- Ryguasu

That line could stand a bit of editing, although Wal-Mart may be the #2 grocer, there may be older stores remaining that carry no groceries and it is a discount department store not a grocer. Fred Bauder 16:05 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Wal-Mart is not chiefly a grocer, although it's recently started a chain of Wal-Mart Neighborhood Markets that are grocery stores. I shop at one weekly, even though they're an obvious attempt to drive established grocery stores out of business -- the prices are great. As for other Wal-Marts, I've never been in one that didn't sell some groceries, but what they sell is mostly junk food. -- Storm

environment

Can anyone confirm or deny the claim made here [1] that Walmart does "not insist upon sustainable sources for its wood products" -- Tarquin 16:54 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

This concern seems to be a British thing. I don't recall any American company going back up the supply chain it this manner, although perhaps some do. Americans pretty much treat wood as a commodity. Fred Bauder 16:14 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

In the USA, there is virtually no sustainable source of wood whatsoever, just clearcuts, bigger clearcuts, and clearcuts closer to other clearcuts. Wood is treated as a Resource extraction industry here. 'Selective cut' tends to mean: "we select all the trees and cut them" clearcuts and slash-and-burn/cut-and-run is the norm in the US, I know that's not necessarily true worldwide... does anyone know of any providers of sustainably-produced lumber or other wood products? Anywhere? I need that alternate POV for some of the articles I've worked on.Pedant 21:28, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

npov yet again

I have a real problem with some of the facts and much of the tone of this paragraph. It does not seem to be NPOV even for a "criticism" section. My specific concerns are listed below. If you can satisfy those concerns, please revert my wording but, in the meantime, I'm going to soften a few things. Rossami 03:53, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

None of Wal-Mart's stores are unionized and ~33% of the employees are temporary (2002). The company is the target of persistent unionizing efforts, but has aggressively and sometimes illegally fought off all attempts. In 2000, the meat-cutting department of the Wal-Mart superstore in Jacksonville, Texas voted to unionize; two weeks later, Wal-Mart shut down all its meat-cutting operations. Wal-Mart's unionized grocery competitors such as Kroger and Safeway are at a disadvantage, as wages at Wal-Mart are about 20% less than at comparable companies. There is a high employee turnover rate; nevertheless many employees express satisfaction with the status quo. Employee Kathleen Baker submitted a petition from 80 Wal-Mart employees which requested wage increases, she was then fired for "theft" of the company typewriter. Walton once argued that his company should be exempt from the minimum wage. (Palast -- pp. 121)

33% temporary workers - not at all unusual for US retailer. also obscures the stated desire of some (though obviously not all) Wal-Mart employees to remain temporary (for work-life balance, summer job, scheduling flexibility, etc.).
"illegally fought off" unionization - please source this specifically that they were convicted and the conviction was upheld. That is a very strong statement and, if untrue, could be libelous.
high employee turnover rate - again, not at all unusual for any US retailer. Also not unusual for the demographic of their target employee.

I'd like to add in criticisms of the "criticisms" section that the wages quoted for the guatemelan workers is HIGHER than the minimum wage in china: 25 cents an hour, with no overtime bonus. However, there really isn't an easy solution for this - if people stop buying the products made at those labor rates, or if wal-mart stops using those factories, the factories close up and then the factory workers have no money at all instead of just poverty level wages. All of these criticisms need to be thought through - be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

The news show carrying the story was 60 Minutes and for the most part it seemed to be true. Wal-Mart has in the past gone into smaller comunities , driven out the mom and pop stores (Somtimes larger department stores too), and then closed shop when they opened a supercenter to service multiple cities. This hapened mostly in 1990's. They even coined the term in the show "The Wal-Mart Effect", which was the title of the story. Wal-Mart probably did not do this intentionally. Moore likely what happened was in the late 70's through the 80's Wal-Mart opened small stores in small communities. Wal-mart becuase of economies of Scale and Economies of Scope was able to offer products at a lower price point than the smaller stores. As a result the smaller stores went out of bussiness. Then in the 90's Wal-Mart switched stratagies by openeing large supercenters which included grocery markets to get even larger Economies of scale at the store level. As the smaller stores did not meet the new Wal-Mart stratagy and the Executives figured that customers would travel the aditional 10-15 miles more, they closed down the smaller stores, often leaving no retail or very limited retail oportunities in these small towns.

Towns where this happend do indeed have many upset residents and they do feel highly betrayed. Several stores in the mid and late 90's had a stratagy to open stores in Wal-Mart Vacated properties. Places (Now Pamida a subsd of ShopKo) and Alco-Duckwall did this.

The funny thing about the whole thing is that even though Wal-mart has huge buying power and Large Economies of scale in its favor they do not always offer the lowest price. In their food stores, often times limited quanity/selection stores, such as Aldi's, Dollar General, and Save-A-Lot can beat the Wal-Mart price on many items leveraging increased sales through the selections that they do carry. Also many elderly people will not go into a Wal-Mart Supercenter becuase they are too big. This is why Wal-Mart stores typically do not put the limited selection stores out of bussiness. The Patrons are not Wal-Mart target demographic nor will they typically every be Wal-Marts demographic.

Stores that make use of Associated Wholsale Grocers are also able to beat Wal-Mart on Generic brands, produce, and meat. These stores tend to make very good use of local produce and meat vendors thus reducing thier costs. They make such good use of them that at least where I live Wal-Mart will not match prices on their produce and meats or really any of their advertised prices. Wal-Mart also has a distinct lack of varity of Generics example where I live Wal-Mart offers a 12 pack of Sam's cola for 2.27 however the local stores are able to offer a 12 pack of Vess cola for $1.80 and Wal-Mart could offer the Vess Cola but doesn't. Another example is the Always-Save/Best-Choice (Associated Wholsale Grocers) generic vegtables which are offered typically 2 per dollar for the Best Choice or 5 for 1 dollar for the Always-Save brand where as the Wal-Mart brand is typically $.30-$.50. Yet another example is with Ground Turkey, The local Save-A-Lot offers Jennie-O Festive ground turkey (An exclusive brand made just for them as is 7Up/Dr Pepper Deja-Tea) for the cost of $.69 per pound where as the local Wal-Mart offers Pilgram Pride ground Turkey for $1.09 per pound. The loacl Aldi store offers a generic single serving cerral mix pack where as Wal-Mart doesn't likewise the local Save-A-Lot offers a generic snack size chip package where as Wal-Mart only offers the Frito-Lay pacakage. Wal-Mart won't price match in these cases becuase they don't/can't/won't carry these brands/items. Now what Wal-Mart is good at is offering brand name products at a very low cost.

Dunno how relevant this is, but the wal-mart I work at has an approximate 45% turnover rate, and in the past has exceeded 100%. The target I worked at hovered around 25%. For good or bad, Wal-Mart is basically a temporary job no matter when you were hired.

Revise Header

The header is way too long. It should only be 2-3 paragraphs. I'll reformat it if I have the time.

"associate" vs. "employee"

The Milestones section refers a few times to the number of "associates" they have. Wouldn't "employees" be a bit better there? I realize that Wal-Mart calls its workers "associates," but strictly speaking, it's a bit of a misnomer. Dictionary.com gives the definition "A person united with another or others in an act, enterprise, or business; a partner or colleague." Since Wal-Mart's figures undoubtably include all employees, regardless whether they are in fact "partners or colleagues," it would seem better to me to say employees....

what do you think? I'll go ahead and change it in a couple days if noone objects.

I agree. I would go further. The use of the term "associate" to mean employee is Wal*Mart POV and needs to be corrected. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Associate" is a term meant to imply ownership. Back when all employees of Wal-Mart automatically received stock options, "Associate" was a factual and appropriate term. However, entry-level employees have not had this perk for about 10 years now. To keep the new employees from feeling like second-class, they continue to call them "associates" whether they own stock or not. I offer this just as information - draw your own opinions.

Ok, I'm-a-changin' it.--Yourcelf 18:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They should be called associates

I think this is incorrect. What is correct is the term associate, as in, a parter or people united in business.Associates still can opt for stock options. Associates at each store can receive a Stakeholders/profit sharing check. Many things affect this bonus, such as, shrinkage;(therefore associates work together to ensure less shrinkage)/safety sweeps to reduce injuries and insurance claims/Accuracy with cashiers to ensure profits and correct inventory just to name a few. Even managers are refered to as associates. Since eveyone in the building are "' ...united with another or others in an act, enterprise, or business'" They should be called Associates. As they work together as a collective whole to better a company. Just my opinion. :) --Lee754952 09:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good vs bad

Can Someone please include good things that wal-mart has done for the community? This is a problem i've noticed with most big corporation pages on wikipedia, they are all full of critcisms and fail to neglect any of the charitable work and what the company has done for the community. Or even why they are now popular.

We have tons and tons of critcisms in this article, but not any good points of them... until good points are added and the article becomes more neutral, I belive criticms must belong in another section.

It's really interesting that all the refrences given are all books anti-walmart, that obviously shows a bias inherent in the article.

The article already notes that Wal-Mart employs more than a million people, they have an efficient stock control system that keeps operating costs low, and notes that in 1998 its charitable contributions exceeded $100 million. Those look very much like 'good points' to me.

If you're aware of specific good things WM does - like, say, a breakdown of those contributions - by all means list them. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anybody's free to add their knowledge, and that includes you. --Calair 13:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think listing charitable contributions is relevant, but if you wanted to open that can of worms, much criticsm will undoubtably follow. Wal-Mart gives less to charity than almost any other publicly-traded corporation as of about two years ago and spends enormous sums publicizing the little it gives.

you can't get rid of criticism by foot-noting it

A foot-note at the bottom of the article is not going to cut it. The temporary solution I came up with, having a section that points to the new page Criticism of Wal-Mart is a poor compromise as well. This article deserves a proper criticisms section, not some bogus blip of link at the bottom.

LegCircus 03:23, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

When 3/4ths of the page is criticism of the company then you know it's time to create another page that is critcisms of wal-mart, as the page has stopped being about wal-mart and instead started being about criticisms of wal-mart

While I have no disagreement with Criticisms of Wal-Mart being a separate article, normal Wikipedia style when splitting up topics is that the main article (i.e. Wal-Mart) should have a section with a paragraph on the topic and a link to the main article. See for example the way the sections are laid out on United States or any other article on a country. I shall rework this to fit the standard style. —Stormie 01:40, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Much better, IMHO. Thanks. --Calair 04:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool.. please feel free to tweak the paragraph - I'm not American and don't really know anything about the criticisms levelled at Wal-Mart, so I just did a really quick & dirty summary attempt. —Stormie 06:06, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Agree, need more detail in the criticism section, no reason to put it on a separate page. NihonGo 21:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am reinstating some of what was just deleted from this page. I get it that this page is not the main criticism page, but the general policy when referring to daughter articles is to summarise main points of the daughter article in the main article so this should be ok.:

 :Criticisms: + "and has become a symbol to of Globalization to anti-globalists."

at the end of the paragraph, this definitely belongs. I think that my original edit was appropriate though, I'd prefer to restore the whole thing, deleted by redlinked user. Any input on this? also reinstating watered- down version of this:

milestones: + "2004 Wal-Mart opens new Superstore within one half-mile of Teotihuacan pyramids."

although I think the original version was quite appropriate as well. comments? Pedant 18:00, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

The edits right now seem fine... But not restoring the whole thing... then it just gives for everyone else restoring all thier critcisms again and we end up with no info about wal-mart and just a ton of critcism. the article simply needs to state basic problems with wal-mart overview of crticisms. Then the Criticsm of wal-mart can go into examples/explain them if people are intrested in following that link. Chuck F 18:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hypermart on Timeline?...Diversity Measures?

Several years ago the company opened a few (I think no more than four) HyperMart USA stores,their largest ever.Results were disappointing and these were closed.Should they be on the timeline for inclusivity of failure alongside success,or not on it because of lack of historic significance? Also,the "Diversity" section refers only to the "Corporate Equality Index" of the Human Rights Campaign without any explanation of what this index measures.The HRC article doesn't explain this index either,but the organization,despite its broad name,is primarily concerned with promoting public acceptance of homosexuality,so I have to wonder if it measures ethnic/racial/disability/linguistic etc. matters of "diversity" as well as whether homosexual relationships are treated as "equal" to heterosexual ones in the ways the company deals with its employees.Why not explain it?--Louis E./le@put.com/ 12.144.5.2 21:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Also see the NPOV/Timeline issues above. I have listed the Hypermart USA stores as "former operations" on the "List of Assets owned by Wal-Mart" article, which is linked to from the main article. The list there comes from Annual Reports of Wal-Mart when they had opened and closed the storesjoe 17:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re: Hypermart

The Hypermarts were not closed, they were converted to supercenters. The former Hypermart in Arlington, TX is now a Supercenter.

--Txredcoat 13:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the point is that no stores are operated as Hypermart*USA anymore, and wal-mart has bought out the joint partner's stakes in those stores. I will get the info on those former operations and make up a section to include, because the hypermarts are not the only former formats operated by walmart joe 06:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam Walton

Had to put in some references to the founder, whose legacy right or wrong still defines the company Libertas

Changing Information

I stated that Walmart's Greeters sometimes selectively choose to check certain age groups (Teenagers over Senior Citizens)and people who have more valuable items. Someone rewrote the paragraph and deleted this information. It says they always check receipts for mechandise. Someone is being biased and/or wants to censor inforamtion.

If you can cite a source, I'm sure no one would object to restoring the info. RadicalSubversiv E 17:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no basis for the accusation that greeters selectively target certain people. There certainly is no policy at walmart for this, and while it may happen at some stores or with some greeters, it is not a companywide program or policy. 138.26.8.110 17:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In that case the original author won't be able to find a source, and it won't be an issue. RadicalSubversiv E 17:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. While it may not be company policy, it happens. It may not be a police department's policy to racially profile, but it happens. I've seen, numerous times, people walking out get stopped and checked (before walking through the theft alarms) for having many expensive looking items, many small items, etc, or for being young, where people with fewer items, cheaper items, or older customers were just waved through. It's one of the many reasons why my family has stopped shopping at walmart. (and sidelining the criticisms about walmart's work policies (among other things) as being POV is POV in itself. Walmart is currently the defendant in lawsuits in california. Walmart has ranked as the worst company to work for in the northwest, and with good reason.) Bob the Cannibal 07:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have seen numerous times that older people (senior citizens) are waved through the exit while younger people (teenagers) are stopped right behind them. This has happened right when I was leaving a Wal-Mart once. An older lady in a wheelchair went right past the greeter with some merchandise. The greeter acknowledged her and said to have a nice day. Right behind her was a teenager carrying a CD in a blue Wal-Mart bag. The greeter stopped the teenager and asked for a receipt. The teenager showed the receipt and walked out. Another time a middle-aged woman had a gallon of milk and went past the greeter without being stopped. The greeter was looking straight at her, so he knew she was there. Right behind her was a man with a DVD player. The greeter stopped him in the exit and asked for proof of purchase. The point of these two examples is to show that the selective checking of receipts is a reality, company policy or not. I think many people just don’t realize that this is happening and that is one of the reasons it is not ever brought forth and examined.

If you can cite a source which documents this practice, I'm sure someone would be happy to add it to the article. Rhobite 18:16, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

You can't cite the company for the wrongdoing of an employee that you witnessed. Did you make the manager there aware? As a former employee of a walmart store I know that it is actually against company policy to do what you are accusing. If the management knew of the problem and they did what they were supposed to, they would fix that issue. I'm sure that at any business sometimes people do something they are not supposed to do. You cannot criticize the entire company for that, especially since your only experience is at one store, which is a very very narrow view of the entire company 138.26.8.177 18:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People greeters

Without a verifiable reference to the job description, it is difficult to know what the "primary" responsibility of the employees known as "people greeters" is.

From observation, the employee invariably stationed near the entrance to the Wal-Mart closest to where I live usually does not greet customers, so if this is their "primary" responsibility, they do not appear to be discharging it very punctiliously. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While one would get fired for posting the job description verbatim outside of walmart, the primary job listed in the job description is for the greeter to greet customers. their secondary job is to respond to "Failure to Deactivate", which means the cashier didn't deactivate the inventory control tag that makes the inventory control system alarm sound. Greeters have no power or right to detain anyone, and anyone who is asked to stop by a greeter can keep walking if they want and the greeter cannot force them to stop. 164.111.208.180 16:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to the job responsibilities of a people greeter, from walmartstores.com: http://tinyurl.com/d93fo 164.111.208.180 17:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ditto on the broken link... tinyURL is cool, but it can't handle links into Java sessions. Feco 21:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If greeting people is the primary job, then at Sam's Club during busy periods, if the greeter doesn't have enough time both to greet people and also check an exiting customer's items against the receipt, the greeter would continue to greet people while allowing customers to exit without checking their items. Can anyone say whether or not this corresponds to the actual behavior of greeters at Sam's Club during busy periods? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not stick with the current construction: "greeters do the following...."? All jobs have some degree of task switching, and who's to say that Wal-Mart greeters in different stores don't allocate their time differently? Feco 19:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly works for me. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are there ~~bouncers~~ people greeters only in U.S. stores? I've been to three different Wal-Marts in Germany and have never seen a people greeter here. --Angr/_comhrá 23:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detail of criticism

Currently, only 1.5% of the article (two rows) is dedicated to criticism. I don't think it's fair to have only this level of detail. Wal-Mart is one of the most controversial corporations of the US. To make a comparison, on McDonald's Corporation about 15% of the article is about criticism. Also, I don't think that "Wal-mart Benefits" section belongs in the article. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not like the current treatment, where the main Criticism of Wal-Mart article is linked to from this article's criticism section? There's a brief, uncontroversial overview within this article, with the expectation that users will follow the link to get details. Similar treatment is used in Coca-Cola. It looks like the criticism section of McDonald's Corporation probably deserves its own article. Listing specific criticisms in Wal-Mart may cause problems if it leads to edits wars, critique/rebuttal treatment and NPOV problems. It can also lead to fact divergence, as different elements are added to the different articles. Merging Criticism of Wal-Mart into Wal-Mart will almost double the size of the article, which may not be desirable. Feco 17:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other corporation that has a separate article on criticism. The criticism about The Coca-Cola Company is on that article. I don't think we have a policy to put the positive information in the article "XXX" and criticism in the article "Criticism of XXX". bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this was addressed earlier on (see "you can't get rid of criticism by foot-noting it" on this talk page). If you really feel strongly, merge Criticism of Wal-Mart back into this article. I think it makes both articles less useful, but I won't rv. You may end up facing opposition from other editors... maybe not. Just make sure to set up the redir and provide documentation/explanation on the talk pages. Feco 17:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia we don't split pages for different POVs. How would it be for Hitler to write:

Adolf Hitler was the fuehrer of Germany, who reformed the German economy in the 1930s. He enjoyed painting and playing with his dog. He married his lifelong sweetheart, Eva Braun, two days prior to his death.

See also: Criticism of Adolf Hitler

bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 16:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wal-Mart associate I have to say I feel everything seems fair. I think that criticism deserves its own page simply due to the length. I don't think that referencing it in anyway takes anything away from the points, While working on the inside of Wal-mart I think that I understand its successes and short coming better than anyone here. I can tell you that if anything I feel the criticism page in itself needs to be revised, many of the areas of criticism shouldn't things like unions, as much as many people don't want to here it we the associates are the ones that don't want a union, not the company. I have even spoke to in public at our store (3233) about unions and never been pressured one way or the other. But on the same token the page does not hit one of the major problems which is how quickly management is promoted, which yes causes issues. Many times lawsuits filed against Wal-mart could have been avoided by better management in a store. So To sum up I think either one of two things needs to happen either we leave things the way they are or we can merge the pages together but in order to do this I think that We need to remove debatable criticism and stick with just the facts or we will have just a run on page that no one ones to read. FYI I am a hourly Wal-Mart Deli Associate. ase500

Whoever's behind the Wikifight side repeatedly posting about how great it is that Wal-Mart still buys some things from US manufacturers in the CRITICISM section regarding outsourcing and trade with China, please knock it off. The section is there for Criticism of Wal-Mart and it's business practices, not cheerleading. If you want balance, put the stuff about how many great jobs they're supporting elsewhere in the article. It's not like there isn't enough room elsewhere. --Unfocused 04:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see ase500's point that merging the whole "Criticism" article into this one makes the article somewhat long. On the other hand, the basic information about the company all comes first, so a reader who doesn't want to get bogged down in the controversies can stop reading at that point or can use the ToC to find the material s/he wants. Thus, the length doesn't impede its utility to the reader. I lean toward combining it all into one article, adding one sentence to the lead section noting that Wal-Mart has been involved in many controversies, and then retitling the "Criticisms" section as "Controversies", because on each issue it should describe both the criticism and Wal-Mart's response. I don't agree with Unfocused's suggestion of strictly segregating favorable and unfavorable material. It's more useful to the reader if all the information on, for example, community impacts is in one subsection. (Of course, that ties in with renaming the overall section; as Unfocused says, it's potentially misleading to have "cheerleading" passages in a section headed "Criticisms".)

Here are some specific comments about the version I looked at (may no longer be current given the ongoing edit war). This article's space allocation is way off and heavily biased in favor of Wal-Mart. It's one of the most controversial companies in the U.S. today, and blowing off all the criticisms with such a brief mention and wikilink isn't enough. One alternative to a complete merger might be to have the "Criticisms" (or "Controversies") section begin, as now, with the wikilink, but then have a bulleted point, of a sentence or two, for each of the sections in the "Criticisms" article. The trouble is that summarizing such material is likely to provoke more edit wars than just incorporating it. Also, I think that slavishly repeating "Sam's Rules" is probably a copyvio and is certainly not encyclopedic. Instead of the full text, there should be a brief, objective description -- Are these rules printed on a little card that all new employees get? Are they the basis for management training courses? Or were they enunciated by Walton but have largely fallen by the wayside in terms of the current operation of the company? Whatever the facts are, describe the historical and current status of the rules; if someone notable asserts that they've been integral to the company's success, report that opinion with attribution but don't blindly accept it; drop the complete text and substitute a link to where the text can be found. Finally, I have grave doubts about including the list of employee benefits. We're writing for the general reader, not the prospective employee; drop the complete list and substitute a comment on anything notable. (Offering sick pay, etc. is not notable and needn't be stated in an encyclopedia article about a large U.S. corporation.) JamesMLane 09:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism to Controversies I agree about changing the section name, but think Controversies and Criticisms is better, since some criticisms of Wal-Mart aren't widely considered controversial. I think there should be a full description of each controversy, followed by a summary of Wal-Mart supporters' rebuttal. Further, this article has become large enough that I think we should be supporting data on both sides with numbered footnotes that link to the References and External Links at the bottom of the page.

--Unfocused 15:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note on footnotes and citations- I wholeheartedly agree with Unfocused... sadly, wikipedia's current footnoting capability is pretty basic (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). The technical constraints make footnoting an article like Wal-Mart very difficult, b/c there's no easy way to keep a footnotes section ordered at the bottom of the article. The only easy way I see is for us to rely on external-link formatted citations of sources... this takes care of the autonumbering problem and allows people to add the citations they know about without having to shuffle and renumber a footnote index. I'll go ahead and throw in citations to things I know about. Feco 23:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why Sam's Rules were removed.

As originally posted, they were a clear copyright violation. Posted as an unexplained external link in the middle of the article, the aren't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. I won't fight putting "Sam's Rules" back in if these two issues can be addressed successfully, but just describing the link isn't enough: links must support content, not be a substitute for content. --Unfocused 04:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Include "Benefits" section, or not?

Copied from section above: Finally, I have grave doubts about including the list of employee benefits. We're writing for the general reader, not the prospective employee; drop the complete list and substitute a comment on anything notable. (Offering sick pay, etc. is not notable and needn't be stated in an encyclopedia article about a large U.S. corporation.) JamesMLane

It is my opinion that, as the single largest retail employer in the US, Wal-Mart sets trends in employee benefits that other companies are virtually forced to follow, whether that is offering more in benefits or less. It is this market influence that makes it encyclopedic, but as listed right now, it isn't very useful. I would prefer to keep it in there, not to satisfy the Wal-Mart astroturfers, but to give a point to add real facts and statistics to. For example, per Wal-Mart's own page, http://www.walmartfacts.com/newsdesk/wal-mart-fact-sheets.aspx#a125, only about 500,000 of their 1.6 million employees are insured through Wal-Mart's plan. Also the fact that there are no lifetime maximums for most covered medical conditions is noteworthy, but I think more detail needs to be dug up on that as well. How and when the benefits are earned/offered is very important, and keeping a basic list of marginal value in place until detail can be found may prevent some Wikifights as the detail is developed. --Unfocused 15:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees--600,000 people--are forced to get health insurance coverage from the government or through spouses’ plans—or live without any health insurance.

Recent reports show that Wal-Mart tops the list of companies in many states whose employees and/or their children rely on taxpayers to foot the bill for health care

Wal-Mart has increased the premium cost for workers by over 200% since 1993--medical care inflation only went up 50% in the same period. In 2002 alone, Wal-Mart’s health care premiums increased by 30%.—nearly triple the national average increase of 11%.

etc... all from [2] bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 16:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As A WALMART ASSOCIATE I really don't think you guys get the company one bit. it is more than a job, its not a career for most people but it is a culture. I have been an associate for nearly 2 years now, I have been wrongfully terminated at one point, however I was able to find a peaceful way inside the company, the reason I am working on keeping benefits and other areas alive is to allow people to understand the company. The mass majority of associates do move on with in a year and never do qualify for health ect... But most do not quit because of Wal-Mart, Main reason is the Customers. I am sorry but most customers a very rude. You work hard for them, Because the customer is the boss, and they rarely thank you for anything. Management often praises you however I don't think there is anyone inside the company that can thank you and quit make you feel the way a customer can. Most people can't take the day to day thankless work. For example my center sees up to 15,000 People per day, out of that 15,000 you may get 10 thank yous. Can any of you say that you could do that day after day, and Wal-Mart Stores inc, is in now way responsible for that. So you can see why most associates don't qualify for health and ect.. its not Wal-Mart its the basics of retail that runs people out long before they qualify. I personally do have all of the benefits listed. I do own stock, I do have excellent health, I do have a 401k. And never has the company ever told anyone in my center to get state or fed health. Most of the people on fed or state health where there when they entered Wal-Mart. If an associate is still eligible for state or fed coverage depend on which area of the store they work. Let me explain the pay system. Its a scale that ranges from 1-7 each department is given a level for example my department deli is on the higher end at a 5. The more talent or skill a department requires the better the pay. Starting pay for people with experience in each area is higher than the base pay, at 90 day after their hire date they under go a review, at that point they will be given a raise based on performance, average is $0.55/hr. (standard is 40 cents an hour, exceeds is 55 cents - edit from Prince) At 6-9 months you become eligible for a merit raise based on performance. Every year after that you undergo your yearly review and are given a raise based on performance. Now transferring, your pay is given a differential from one to the next from your current pay to the base pay of that department. This can go up or down depending on the transfer, all transfers are voluntary, Management can not force a transfer in any way. (Take the transfer or be laid off. -Prince) Promotions are given to those who performs the best. (Hardly ever has been the case, usually the ones that are smart enough to leave usually DO leave, and the ones that are left get overlooked for promotions -Prince) The highest one can go without going through the management training program(which all associates qualify for at 6 months.)(It's 1 year to qualify for the management program - Prince) is Support manager (Which the company is trying to phase out cause assistant managers don't get overtime -Prince). Beyond that all positions are salary based and are given a very nice performance based Bonus. I hope this clears a few things up as far as questions as to why and how Wal-Mart’s pay and benefits work.-- ase500

While I agree that such facts are important for inclusion, the phrasing could be much more NPOV. For example, "forced to get..." is pretty inflamatory, and would certainly start a Wikifight.--Unfocused 16:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal of Negative Economic Impact Allegation

"Rebuttal of Negative Economic Impact Allegation A study by Dr. Emek Basker at the University of Missouri, showed average increases of 50 retail jobs in communities five years after the entry of Wal-Mart."

I would like to add that the motive of this study must come in to question when one considers that the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune, the Laurie's and the Kronke's, live in Columiba, Missouri, home to the University of Missouri (MU). Do remember that recently some controversy was raised over the credibility of Paige Laurie's academic performance at a college in California (I don't remember the name, maybe Berkeley or UCLA). That said, the Laurie's and the Kronke's donate lots of money to universities in Missouri, namely MU and Central Missouri State University (CMSU). MU is always looking for financial support, being that it is a state university. Often, studies promoting the positive aspects of Wal-Mart are conducted here. The message I am trying to convey is, with regards to the Wal-Mart corporation and it's positive impacts on society, do question the motive of any study or report with ties to any Missouri institution or with any affiliation to Missouri.

5/15 Product Controvery edits

Some of this is a rehash of discussion of the pre-merge Criticism article..

magazine eds and 1st amendment freedoms- as near as I can tell, no editors/publishers made statements along the lines of "WalMart's actions infringe on the 1st Amendment...". They're educated enough to know that 1st amend = "Congress shall make no law"... it doesn't address free commercial association. Big anti-WalMart critics may have talked about 1st Amendment consequences, but not people in the biz
the phrase "claimed to be" is synonymous with "deemed" in the context. I'm trading three words and a bizarre grammar constuct for one word with a clear adverb.
fun with quotation marks- regarding RIAA parental advisory labels... the producers determine what is/isn't offensive... Wal-Mart has no editorial control on this.

Feco

Not in theory. But the suppliers won't produce items they can't sell in America's biggest retailer. Therefore they have hardly a choice not to comply to the notorious rules of WalMart. So WalMart controls them simply because the company is so large.

And second, in your opinion the 1st amendment is only for Congress but big companies like WalMart are allowed to influence the freedom of the press, if I understand you correctly?

I agree. I wouldn't wonder if WalMart occasionally came back to the producer of an album and told them: "Guys, there's a song that our costomers might find offensive" (or, rather, in truth, WalMart finds it offensive) and make them overdub that song because if they didnt they wouldnd carry the album. --Krawunsel 15:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the relevant First Amendment text is "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...". The term censorship in regards to the First Amendment applies to GOVERNMENTAL action. As a private entity, I am entitled to place limits on others' First Amendment rights (excepting the legally defined instances) within my domain. This interpretation isn't my opinion, this is current case law of the US. Wal-Mart is free to dictate the rules of the game to suppliers... ie- "play by our rules or we won't buy from you". Editors complained about this affecting their editorial perogative to write whatever they want.

Regarding RIAA labels, see [3] for all kinds of info from the horse's mouth. Find a documented case of Wal-Mart influencing the production of a radio edit... speculating that there's a back-and-forth exchange between Wal-Mart and record labels is going out on a limb. Particularly since the FCC regulates over-the-air broadcast of music, record companies are acting to satisfy more than just Wal-Mart when producing "clean" versions. Feco 23:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Green 'Up' Arrow from Revenue Number

I removed the up indicator from the financial summary table. An up/down indicator should make clear what the comparison is... year over year, quarter over quarter, quarter over prior... etc. There's not enough room in the table to clarify. I figured the path of least resistance was just to drop the arrow... I don't think it adds a lot of clear info by keeping it in. Feco 23:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you have a problem with the revenue indicators, talk to Template talk:Infobox Company before you go around making changes. We've been implementing it on all infoboxes. Secondly, by placing 2004 next to the revenue, and not 2004 Q2, makes it clear whether its annual or quarterly. Thirdly, revenues are cyclic, and with anything that's cyclic, seeing an up or down arrow can only mean one thing. Also, I'm not going to put the arrow back until tomorrow to prevent an edit war. So someone else will have to go do that. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 23:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take this discussion to the Infobox page... but a few points: revenue is seasonal on a quarter-to-quarter level, not on a year-to-year level (at least, not in a predictable way that an up/down indicator sheds light on). A format like the following makes more sense to me, because it's unambiguous. It shows the revenue level, absolute change, relevant time frame (FY05 against FY04)

Revenue: $288B (

$30B FY05)

Feco 00:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Allegations of Firing for "Non-Family-Friendly Viewing

I removed the blurb along the lines of "some have alleged that Wal-Mart employees have been fired for watching R-rated movies and M-rated video games on their personal time. The store contends that this is not-family-friendly behavior, which is counter to the store's policy." I tried several different google variations to see if I could find any reference to this... no luck. If anyone has a source for this, please link to it and re-post. Otherwise, the text seems a little too much like one guy's speculation about why he was fired. Feco 22:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something you personally don't agree with isn't necessarily "POV blurb", Mr. Censor. You see, there are opinions besides your own!! --85.74.186.134 09:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is about verifiability, not censorship. Articles should not material that rests on the sole authority of the editor. Feco's point is perfectly valid. If Wal-Mart employees have been fired for watching R-rated movies on their personal time, that IMHO is an interesting item that's germane to the article. But it has to be sourced. Not just "some have alleged." You have give some kind of traceable, independently verifiable source, such as a newspaper article, that says this. Otherwise it can't go in the article.Dpbsmith (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Health benefits coverage, availability and stats

209.191.206.22, please bring a reference if you want to change coverage and stats on the health benefits section. I researched and posted that, with a reference. What is there is already generous to Wal-Mart's image compared to what I found in the reference material.

I will be citing references from the bottom of the page formally. I hope any other editors will do the same so that all statements are third party verifiable and as NPOV as possible. --Un focused 06:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

1. I removed your copyright violating text. You cannot copy & paste from other web sites. It's a copyright violation.

2. The text you copied in indicated that Wal-Mart pays about 2/3 of the premium for health insurance, which is what I cited and posted. What were you trying to prove? --Un focused 09:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

You can't read very well Can you??? If you read all the Q&A you would see that all insurance is optional this mean the figures only reflect the associates the have elected to take coverage not all the assocates that can elect to take coverage. and you would have understood that STARBRIDGE is offered at day one, and that the total benefits package include 50 differant benefits!!!! Health is only one of those benefits, now if you would get that through your head we can move on with the other sections... You can't say oh walmart doesn't give their assocates benefits baseing it on one of 50 benefits one of the optional Benefits at that. Come on buddy go take that ax you have to grind with walmart somewhere eles!!!

Are you trying to point out a factual inaccuracy in the article? Does Wal-Mart pay X% of costs for the 2/3 of employees who elect to have company-provided benefits? I'm trying to figure out what the conflict is here. If there's a factual inaccuracy or misleading statement, make it clear what that statement is. Feco 19:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is the problem, Every time anything Factual is added to the benefits section, That may be a good thing. They revert it, even if it is unbiased information based on the facts, if Wal-Mart does something right shouldn't that be part of the picture. Unfocused amongst others don't want to hear the facts, They seem to be more worried about making sure Wal-Mart is seen badly than getting the facts, when they do quote facts they use them in a bad light, Ex. Wal-Mart covers 1/3 of their associates for health they don't say that 2/3 qualify. That is called lying by omission. Fact is that many managers making over 200,000/yr don't choose to use the health coverage. They also don't tell you that 1/3 is the number that Wal-Mart covers under their own coverage, that does not include figures of how many associates have taken the HMO Option Wal-Mart offers. Now I am a Hourly Wal-Mart Associate, I have access to Facts and Figures inside the company, I have a great deal of access as all Wal-Mart associates do. I will post they will call it Copyrighted. I pose this question how can they say it is copyrighted when they don't have access to the original Document???? How do they know That I am not the writer of the original?? Fact About all Copyrighted Text I have used was used within FAIR USE LAWS OF THE USA! Yes as a Wal-Mart Associate I have an Ax To Grind with the company but it has nothing to do with Benefits, Most don't. Most problems arise do to local management in a store, and has NOTHING to do the Company itself....To further my Point on NPOV, NPOV applies to more than just one article, in this case Wal-Mart is only one of a whole, We are looking at the Retail Industry, it is not NPOV to criticize one company for something and than say its ok for another to do the same and not point it out, ex. Kmart, target and Sears offer Less benefits than Wal-Mart and worse benefits than Wal-Mart. CNN even wrote a story on it called Teflon Target. We need to really stop and think, Do some REAL REASEARCH on why is Wal-Mart being Projected in a bad light here at Wikipedia is it because they are really that bad to their associates??? Or is it because they are the biggest in an industry that does not on the whole treat employees well??? unsigned comment by User:209.191.206.42 02:43, 30 May 2005)

I have no axe to grind. Post a reference to some proof that the 1/3 of employees covered by the insurance plan does not include those on the HMO, and then it can stay. Most insurance plans are HMOs, so it's really hard to believe that the HMO members aren't already in the 500k covered. Until you cite a reference, it's only you saying so. But you cannot simply copy references wholesale, that's a copyright violation.

Prove to me that managers make over $200k/yr., and prove to me that a significant number of the managers opt out. If the plan was good, people who make enough money to afford a good plan wouldn't opt out, would they, because they'd already have a good plan, right? I don't believe that any significant number of the managers opt out. Everything I've seen suggests that the plan is decent insurance, but not very affordable to most of Wal-Mart's employees. As a manager, I would buy additional coverage, not opt out and buy some other coverage. If someone wanted more coverage, logically, it doesn't make any sense to opt out instead of just buying supplemental insurance, so you should provide a reference to back up your statement.

The references I've found indicate that more than 1/3 of employees qualify to join the insurance plan, but because of various factors related to pay, hours worked, and the high employee portion of the premiums, many don't earn enough to buy in. I left that out deliberately, because of the strong negative POV it needs to be supported by equally strong references, and I haven't taken the time to generate proper reference citations to support that. Does that make me anti-Wal-Mart?

Wal-Mart is the leading retailer, and because of that, the benefits it offers can be considered trend setting. Besides, this isn't a Target or Kmart article. And you didn't reference your CNN story. Providing third party references is doing real research. --Un focused 09:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off Unfocused READ the FAIR USE LAWS As they apply to Factual Data for Referance.... it is in no way a violation of copyright law to post Text addressing the issue from a source for Referance. READ!!! Second as a walmart assocate I am not allowed to tell exactly what a Store manager makes, but I can tell you that a supercenter manager makes more than 100K/year and is given a bonus for the preformance of their store. Third your telling me at an average of nearly 10.00/hr that most people can not affored the $35 per paycheck to buy into insurance. Hey I can show you a copy of my paycheck if you would like. Maybe that 3 dollars for Dental killes them... Come on Unfocued Use your head hear, Walmart cant track the HMO states they don't manage them, THATS KINDA WHAT HMO MEANS. and you already deleted the referance that shows that stat as well as the 2/3 stat. But then again it would have been a crime to even read it before you delete it wouldnt it you might learn something!!!

Anon Wal-Mart associate- First, I highly recommend registering as a wikipedia user. Read about the benefits here. Second, I tend to be labeled as a pro-Wal-Mart propagandist by the fervently anti-Walmart wikipedians, so hopefully that gives me a little credibility in your eyes. Third, I do a lot of copyright checking on wikipedia, so I'm familar with fair use laws; I likewise considered the wholesale copy/pasting of the content as a copyright violation beyond the bounds of fair use (in this case, relative proportion seemed way off). Forth, I agree that there are specific facts omitted from the current article that should be included; you seem to be in an excellent position to add them. I suggest you post a bulleted list of the facts here. That will give users a chance to see what you're posting and build consensus. A wholesale change to the article is much more likely to be immediately reverted, so going through this page will be more productive for you. As far as citing sources, it's ideal to do so where possible. Where the fact is something you deem obvious and unsourceable, post to your list w/out a source. If you get strong disagreement about posting it, we can resolve the dispute on the talk page. Feco 03:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feco I am a registered user I however choose to remain logged out for a few reasons, The problem with posting much of the data is it comes from with in Wal-Mart’s Associate Website and any reference to it would simply ask you to login, Furthermore their are certain Facts that I am unable to discuss do to Wal-Mart’s Confidentiality Policy, In such a case where things like Q&As like the one I did post I feel is completely Within the guides of Fair use since it is the document we as Wal-Mart associates are allowed by company policy to share with others. I would post that policy however that would be viewed as Copyright infringement. Can we see a pattern developing here???? If we are prevented from posting any form of Copyrighted work we have No Reference, especially in documents like Q&As where the document must remain enacted to maintain its fairness and usefulness. I don't think that is what Wikipedia was founded on, just there are a few that take the meaning of non copyrighted work too far. Obviously we have to be able to post copyrighted work, Sometimes in its entirety simply as a reference point, otherwise all we are is an encyclopedia of speculation and factual error. unsigned edit by 209.191.206.42

I really do feel for you in your Catch 22 regarding benefits posting here at Wikipedia. However, you must realize that we cannot violate copyright law to accomodate you, and will not accept unnamed "confidential sources" or "I know because I'm an associate" as reference regardless of the POV, either pro or con. We're not Woodward & Bernstein. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Find a third party verifiable reference that supports your statements and you'll have no problems. Finally, how about you post here, one by one, the points you're trying to make but can't find references for? Perhaps myself or one of the other editors here can help find a reference for you. (Preferably one every few days, to allow for research time.) --Un focused 06:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon- please feel free to post. Also, consider creating a second wiki account just for posting Wal-Mart content (if you don't want your primary account to get labeled as a "Wal-Mart clone" by other users. This is a perfectly legit use of two accounts). And you don't have to copy the Wal-Mart Q&A, just post facts with a hyperlink. That's considered excellent sourcing, and it also avoids any question regarding copyright. You don't need to maintain the Q&A structure for the facts to work... there are objective facts in that document that are omitted from here. Post them, include a link to the source, and everyone's happy. Feco 17:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Length

NPOV issues aside, this article is too damn long! People should be linking to outside sources if they want to list benefits, board of directors, etc. that's what the corporate site is for. Likewise, if people want to add criticism, summarize as briefly as possible and link to supporting document, don't try to explain thporoughly on the main page, e.g. critics say Wal-Mart has escaped meaningful consequences for alleged labor law violations. (unsigned comment by User:71.32.17.41)

Criticism makes up roughly half of the article. There used to be a separate 'Criticism of Wal-Mart' article (with a stub description and link in the main 'Wal-Mart' article), but some users felt it was POV to put criticism into its own article. Thus, the criticisms were merged back into the main 'Wal-Mart' article (they had previously been cleaved off into their own article). I was against merging the two, mainly due to length of the combined pages. I'm all for splitting the two up again. Anyone else? Feco 22:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would object strongly to splitting the article in this way. Article size being too large is an indication of three things: an important topic that deserves a lot of coverage, and/or loosely written prose, and/or too much detail for a single article.

Putting criticism in a separate article is strongly POV. To have a separate, fuller article for each of the criticisms and their rebuttals, in addition to the overviews in the main article would be entirely appropriate. This would allow the main article to be "snugged up" a lot.

We don't need full details of each major lawsuit in the main, but a mention of what each major suit was about, and the resolution would belong. Each lawsuit could be covered in detail in one large article, or one article for each issue addressed, or one article for each suit.

Also, a separate "Timeline of Events in Wal-Mart's History" article would also be a good break point, leaving only the very major events in the main. A separate "Officers and Directors of Wal-Mart" (past and present) could relieve some space here. Further, a separate article detailing the changes in Wal-Mart's management policies could be developed.

There are a lot of good ways to fork this article, but splitting off the criticism is not one of them. The "Hitler article" analogy up above in this talk page is the perfect example of why not. --Un focused 00:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<jest>hmmm... Hitler has been used as an analogy. Time to review Godwin's law.</jest> Feco 19:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The original post on this topic did not suggest segregating criticism, but noted that external links could replace much content. The roster of WalMart executives, and board members, for example, is just not general interest material for an encyclopedia article! Such sections should be deleted entirely.

Gundham Deathscythe

This was covered in the pre-merge 'Criticism' talk page, but here it is again: there are no available sources to indicate that Wal-Mart either A) announced it wouldn't carry; or B) removed from shelves the toy in question. Given the paucity of google hits, perhaps the toy isn't stocked b/c it wouldn't move quickly enough to justify shelf space. Wal-Mart doesn't carry millions of items; unless there's a specific reason why something isn't carried, I don't think speculation should go in the article. Feco 23:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does Walmart deserve any praise?

From the looks of this page, a few people were complaining that most sections of the article were anti-Walmart, well someone went and turned it into a carbon copy of the WalmartFacts.com site, which by the way is a pack of corporate propaganda that does not need to be repeated.

What kind of company pays it's employees (including single mothers) $6-$7 an hour, dumps them on the taxpayer funded public assistance programs, and then makes them do a "cheer" for said employer at every meeting?

I myself will not buy any music or books from them because I don't take kindly to a large corporation moving right in and running my favorite local book/music stores out of business and replacing my buying selections with a bunch of censored lyrics and titles they won't stock because of what some Christian moron found offensive, personally I find Toby Keith and Benny Hinn more reprehensible than Metallica and Maxim Magazine.

Furthermore, apathetic employees, which is what you get with low wages, tend to provide less customer service.

On products I did buy there (and never will again), I ended up exchanging a computer 5 times before finding one that was not defective, and I exchanged an air conditioner twice, talk about QUALITY....

I agree with everything you said, and thanks for entering into a dialog. But we're building an encyclopedia and that makes different demands on editing. We're here to report the facts and not make judgments. That's the founding ideal here. You can report that they have certain issues/problems but when you do you need to provide sources to back up the statements, include certain judgments and legal issues and you get your point across. We are always looking for good editors, why don't you hang out a while and get the swing of things? Rx StrangeLove 14:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I love my local retailers too. But I don't believe they have any sort of right to force their cost inefficiencies and inconvenience on my market by excluding competitors. If Wal-Mart can make a profit selling cheap underwear at 3 am, more power to them. If my independent bookstore can make a profit by maintaining cleaner stores, better selection, higher quality and better service, more power to them. As to Wal-Mart employees... people tend to get paid approximately what they're worth in the job they perform. A pathetic education system doesn't exactly prepare people for a cutting-edge job market. I would never pay someone $10/hr. when they only provide $5/hr. in value to me as their employer. Hooray capitalism! (re-adding my original comment that apparently was deleted by User:Izanbardprince.) Feco 16:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"People tend to get paid approximately what they're worth in the job they perform." No, you get paid based on how little the company thinks they can get away with paying and still have workers, thats what led to the illegal janitor case. "A pathetic education system doesn't exactly prepare people for a cutting-edge job market." What about the educated that have been displaced by the jobs companies like Walmart exports to China and have to take severe underemployment vs. starvation? "I would never pay someone $10/hr. when they only provide $5/hr. in value to me as their employer. Hooray capitalism!" Translation: I would never pay a competant employee enough to care about his job and provide good service to me when I could get some smacktard that calls in sick every other day and sneaks into the back to whack off all the time, for minimum wage. Hooray for moron Republicans like me!!!!! "I love my local retailers too. But I don't believe they have any sort of right to force their cost inefficiencies and inconvenience on my market by excluding competitors." Maybe what you would think to be inefficiency is actually the cost of providing a selection that doesn't appeal to the average wanker redneck Walmart shopper? Toilet paper and toothpaste is the same anywhere, but I'd rather not buy clothes that yank on all the wrong places and are destroyed by my washing machine, and pre-processed ground beef and steaks (if you can call them that) that would slap a pair of tits on a man! And come on, who doesn't like a good copy of Maxim and a shoot em up video game? Maybe all the puritan smacktards that find those offensive got lost in Walmart's aisle of cheap liquor in plastic bottles? -Izanbardprince

Just to let you know the guy that is changing it to my version now is NOT me, I could respect the article if it really was NPOV in it's current state, however I feel it is heavily biased in favor of Walmart's PR data, of course you can "shop around" for statistics and data to say anything you want, but I feel that the truth is being warped in this article, that the other side of the story is NOT heard, and the hundreds of thousands of Walmart's US employees that live in dire poverty every day would love to have a word with you people. For example, I know sure as hell that if the insurance I pay more than $70 a month for was any good, I wouldn't be paying for medicine and doctor visits entirely out of pocket due to an outrageous deductible and tons of claims denied by Anthem, in reality, Walmart is the example of the rich getting even more obscenely rich while taking advantage of a pricing structure that creates hundreds of thousands of low wage, not even getting by type jobs.Izanbardprince 6:20 AM EST 14 Jun 2005
- The criticism section is huge, but feel free to add verifiable, neutral statements to it. Please do not remove whole paragraphs from other parts of the article, or insert clearly opinionated statements into the article. You can't "balance out" an article by removing content or violating the NPOV policy yourself. And if you think any of the statistics or data in the article are wrong, please point out how and why they are wrong. That's more helpful than vaguely stating that "you can shop around for statistics and data to say anything you want." Specifically, which statistics in the article do you believe are false? Rhobite 13:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

The health insurance statistics are misleading, the company doesn't pay anything nearly close to what they claim, the deductible is so huge that there's no way you'll get past it in a year barring a catastrophe, and the premiums over over $70 a month. While there are a few criticism's, they are added as an after thought and worded so as to make them sound like nonsense. Furthermore, I didn't state any of their wrongdoings as fact unless they were FOUND GUILTY IN COURT. -Prince

Please cite your source. You're accusing Wal-Mart of lying about their employee health plan. If they've done this, certainly it's documented somewhere. Go to it. Rhobite 14:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/health-care.html

WAL-MART’S HEALTH CARE IS UNAFFORDABLE

   * More than 600,000 Wal-Mart employees are not covered by the company’s plan.
   * A full-time Wal-Mart worker who elects family coverage would have to spend on average 25% of his or her poverty-level earnings before Wal-Mart began covering any health care costs.
   * Part-time employees must wait 2 years for insurance and their family members are never covered.
   * Wal-Mart spends 37% less on health care per employee than the average U.S. employer, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

YOU PAY FOR WAL-MART’S POOR HEALTH INSURANCE

   * Despite $10 billion in net profits, in almost every state where data has been disclosed, Wal-Mart leads all companies with the most employees on taxpayer-funded public health assistance.
   * In Wal-Mart’s home state of Arkansas, for example, nearly 4,000 Wal-Mart employees are enrolled in taxpayer-funded health care at a cost to taxpayers of at least $16 million per year.

WAL-MART ABUSES OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

   * Wal-Mart believes public assistance for the poor, meant as a safety net, is a “better value” than Wal-Mart health care. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said, “In some of our states, the public assistance program may actually be a better value.”
   * An editorial by the St. Petersburg Times, outraged by Wal-Mart’s abuse of the health care system, called it “Wal-Mart welfare.”

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/miller-report.html http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/state-reports.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

Costs to Taxpayers. The report estimates the costs borne by taxpayers for things like medical insurance and housing assistance for Wal-Mart employees that can’t afford them because of their low wages and benefits. The report shows that taxpayers would have to pick up $420,750 per year for a hypothetical Wal-Mart store employing 200 people. These costs (which will vary based on the number of people employed in any one store) include:

   * $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families;
   * $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming three percent of the store’s employees qualify for such assistance;
   * $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children;
   * $100,000 a year for additional Title I education funds, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families, each with an average of two children, qualify;
   * $108,000 a year for children’s health insurance costs, assuming 30 employees, each with an average of two children, qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); and
   * $9,750 a year for subsidies for energy assistance for low-income families.

Child labor. An internal Wal-Mart audit turned up thousands of cases of young employees working too late, working during school hours, or working for too many hours a day, in violation of U.S. child labor laws.
Undocumented workers. News reports and other evidence show that Wal-Mart executives knowingly hired undocumented workers as janitors in their stores, and then forced them to work long hours for little pay – $325 for 60-hour, seven-day weeks, for eight straight months, according to one worker.
Exploiting foreign labor. In 2002, Wal-Mart purchased 10 percent of all Chinese goods imported into the U.S. And workers in countries like China, Bangladesh, and Honduras are suffering because of the stringent demands Wal-Mart makes of its suppliers. One factory worker reported working 19-hour days for 10- to 15-day stretches to meet Wal-Mart’s price demands.
Organizing rights. Wal-Mart has aggressively sought to discourage – even intimidate – workers from exercising their right to form a union. Wal-Mart even provides a hotline for its managers to call when they suspect union-organizing activities; on the other end are specialists trained to head off organizing efforts.
Disability discrimination. Wal-Mart has been the subject of numerous lawsuits alleging discrimination in hiring towards people with disabilities.
Worker safety. A recent report provided evidence of Wal-Mart’s policy of locking workers inside stores overnight. In some cases, workers were told not to use emergency exits in any but the most serious emergencies. In some cases, sick or injured workers had to wait for the start of the morning shift, when managers with keys arrived to unlock the doors.

Wake up man, if a Walmart employee is in a car accident and the hospital bill is $30,000 and he can't pay, who do you think does?

Oh hell, just get a job there, you'll have all the proof that you need firsthand that they're a blight on American society.

What you have is an article written that takes corporate PR data that contradicts every report done by their employees, convictions of crimes by United States courts, data collected by the state government programs they're encouraging the abuse of, etc.

If you would unlock it, I'd just be content with getting in a word of truth edgewise between their corporate lies.

-Prince

censorship and arrogance

I must admit I'm rather disgruntled by the way texts are censored here on en.wikipedia.org. Obviously some people patronizing the WalMart Article think their opinion on WalMart is the only one acceptable. Whenever you make a change that some people don't like it's reversed immediately. I don't know how much WalMart themselves are involved but I can't rule it out.

However, it is even more arrogant that some people now seem to think that if you post texts deemed wrong by the standard editors like feco or linuxbeak or shoaler or any other of the people who seem to be fond of WalMart you should be banned rightaway. Now that's how some people deem the constitional rights of normal people who don't want these constitional rights to go to shambles.

Now I'd just like to say it like Michael Moore who should be our hero: Shame on you, shame on you censors who are trying to conceal the truth from ordinary people who deserve to know all the evil of WalMart. You're trying to conceal it. Shame on you. --85.74.167.209 00:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You deleted 8-9 paragraphs of information, removed legitimate references, and changed the text "Wal-Mart Corporate Communications site" to say "Wal-Mart Corporate Propaganda site". This is not an acceptable edit. Do you think it's neutral to call a personality test "intelligence insulting", or accuse Wal-Mart of suppressing "freedom of speech"? And the connection between this dispute and the "constitutional rights of normal people" is beyond me. Michael Moore can ignore sources, because he doesn't have a neutrality policy. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia won't let you come along and simply delete information which displeases you. And please stop throwing the "c" word around. This is a private site. Feel free to start a blog if you want to post your opinions to the world. Rhobite 01:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Huzzah to Rhobite. Anon- you're removing large chunks of the article with no explanation because you disagree with the content. That is much closer to the definition of censorship. This article has ample text devoted to criticism... feel free to contribute there. Your IP addresses have been blocked because you're violating wiki policies. Those are global policies that apply to the entire project. Feco 01:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

now taking bets on Godwin's law Feco 01:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I don't have any agenda here except reverting vandalism. And replacing large portions of any article with personal opinions is vandalism. Those opinions may well be valid (I happen to agree with most of what you say) but the proper place to express them is here on the Talk page, not in the article. Shoaler 11:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, those edits were not vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism for the official definition of vandalism as it applied to editing here. (I'm no fan of Walmart either, FWIW - I'd love to see well-sourced critical commentary.) But POV is not vandalism. Noel (talk) 20:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well... anon IP 66.72.80.214 saw fit to remove a few of my comments from the talk page... I guess it's only censorship when we do it. For what it's worth, User:Izanbardprince later claimed several subsequent edits made from that IP address. Feco 16:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Content to be added when protection ends

The June 2005 issue of Gourmet (magazine) has a feature story on Wal-Mart. There are some interesting factoids that are relevant to the wiki article... I can't get access to an online version, so I'm working from memory here:

Kraft cites Wal-Mart as a driver for cutting product lines to a few 'bests in brand.' Since Wal-Mart will only stock two or three leaders in a product category, suppliers are reducing product diversity in an attempt to aggregate their market share and reach Wal-Mart's radar screen.
A sales rep states that doing business with Wal-Mart is much more straight-forward and honest than with other grocers. Apparently other major grocers play all kinds of funny business (demand World Series tix, demand big kickbacks, charge high shelving fees) to geneate profit from their product selection biz. Wal-Mart doesn't do those things... instead purchasing products with no kickback-type costs.
There was a stat quoted in the article... WMT lowers prices 14%. Not sure if that was exclusive to grocery items, exclusive to department store items or inclusive on both. Also not sure if that was a measured price effect in a new market or the price differential upon entering. Feco 16:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to dig up a printed version from the local library if an online copy can't be found. There were a few other pieces that struck me as relevant to the wiki article. Feco 04:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If doing business with other grocers was such a horrible unprofitable deal, then why not just sell to Walmart? - Prince

Prince - I don't see where it says doing business with other grocers is unprofitable. Any business knows that you don't want to put all of your eggs in one basket, so they likely have to put up with the games that other grocers play.

Walmart plays plenty of games in their negotiation, like coming back later and demanding a lower price than you agreed on and threatening to remove your entire product line if you don't give it to them, thats why there was a coalition of toy makers last Christmas that totally refused to do business with Wal-Mart, and while Toys R Us has all the cool new stuff, Wal-Mart has cheap plastic dinosaurs that were painted by a child working a 90 hour week in China, without being given so much as a mask to wear . -Prince

Izanbardprince's spot

Alice Walton paid $35 million for a painting at an auction, this amount of money could have insured 8,572 Walmart employees for a year.

The average full time sales clerk at Walmart is paid $14,000 a year before taxes, the cheapest health insurance plan Walmart offers full time employees is $60 a month ($720 a year) and has a $1,000 deductible, before the plan starts paying at 80/20, this means that if said employee's appendix ruptures, and that is the only medical cost that year, assuming the operation runs $20,000 (which is ludicrously CHEAP for the medical industry), that would leave the worker responsible for $5,720 of their bill, or more than 40% of their yearly pay, Walmart likes to pat themselves on the back for "protecting employees from financial ruin" through their health care plan, but thats still exactly what will happen to them anyway even if they are among the less than half of Walmart's employees that are even offered insurance.

Walmart deliberately violates child labor laws forcing children to work past 10 PM and operate hazardous machinery, after caught doing this with over a hundred minor employees in 2004 and paying little more than $100,000 in fines (slap on the wrist) and promised by George W. Bush's cronies at the labor department that they would be informed 24 hours ahead of time about any further investigations by the federal government, Connecticut found them violating the labor laws again, this time the company will have to deal with a "whopping" $3,300 fine—the maximum fine of $300 per incident. The 11 violations took place in Hartford, Norwalk and Putnam, and included illegally assigning youngsters to work on hazardous equipment such as compacters and vehicles, and working these children past 10 p.m. Children younger than 18 who are students are not supposed to work past 10 pm. A spokesman for Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, said it's "worth considering toughening the fines" against employers that "willfully and repeatedly" violate child labor laws.

Walmart breaks the law by firing employees that are involved in union organizing, in several cases where found guilty they were forced by the court to re-instate the employees with full back pay, in many other cases they mask their illegal firings by citing other reasons.

Walmart says that it supports over 3 million supplier jobs in the US in an effort to belittle the figure of 1 millions manufacturing jobs they are responsible for deporting to China, many of these supplier jobs are office jobs, food vendor jobs, food manufacturing jobs, etc. that would have existed even if Walmart did not exist.

Walmart fired their number 2 executive, Tom Coughlin, in early 2005 for "$500,000 in questionable transactions", Mr. Coughlin has stated that the funds were used to stage anti-union activities, including paying bribes, in addition, Walmart also fired Rob Hey and Jared Bowen, the executives who reported Coughlin, apparantly in an attempt to silence a pair of whistle blowers.

Walmart has been found GUILTY in court of law, repeatedly for working their emoployees unpaid overtime and falsifying their time sheets to record only 40 hours worked, they are estimated by some accounts to have shorted their workers over $50 million.

Walmart refuses to carry magazines and CD's which have content "not suitable for families", in some rural areas Walmart is the only place to purchase music, worse yet, Walmart is such a huge customer that some smaller artists cannot afford to release two versions of their music, and are effectively forced to release an edited version only, this effectively forces the company's arbitrary, right wing, religiously motivated agenda onto their customers.

Worst of all is that even though we have labor laws and regulations to prevent the abuse of monopolies here in the United States, as long as George Bush is in office, they may as well not even exist. Izanbardprince 08:43, 20 Jun 2005

you are welcome to post germane, factual criticisms to the article if they are not already covered. Be prepared to include references for the source of facts you use. As an example, criticism of the Bush Administration's enforcement of regulations would better fit in George W. Bush than in Wal-Mart. I assume an admin protected the article because you were deleting content without any discussion the the talk page. Wikipedia should cover all elements of a topic, so please refrain from removing opposing viewpoints. Feco 17:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was protected becauee of this 3RR violation report, followed by attempts to avoid the 3RR penalty by using open proxies. Noel (talk) 20:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Izan- are you still around? Either way, does anyone object to unprotecting the article? Feco 19:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can unprotect it tonight or tomorrow morning if there's no objections. If users are breaking the 3RR, of course report them on the appropriate subpage of WP:AN and it'll be handled appropriately. Pak aran 23:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlocked

Alright, since there's no objections, I've unlocked the article. I'll be keeping an eye on it over the weekend. If users are vandalizing or breaking 3RR, of course report them at WP:VIP or the appropriate WP:AN subpages. Pak aran 14:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Applicability of comparison to countries' GDPs

GDP and market capitalisation are not comparable. GDP is a measure of value-added. Profits are the equivalent for a firm. (unsigned comment by IP 38.118.73.78)

I understand the point you're making. I assume the stat was originally included to quantify the scale of Wal-Mart. For that purpose, it's somewhat informative to equate Wal-Mart's total sales to the annual output of a given coutntry. However, I think GNP is probably a better measure. Wal-Mart's sales figures are for the worldwide parent company... this is more appropriate to a GNP measure (nationality) as opposed to GDP (geography). Feco 29 June 2005 17:26 (UTC)

Removal of Officers/Directors from article

An anon user removed the table showing Wal-Mart's Board of Directors and CxOs. I belive the information is useful, especially since notable business/political figures often sit on boards these days (such individuals could be wikilinked as appropriate). In the spirit of 'wiki is not paper,' it doesn't seem like inclusion of this information does any harm. Since it's all raw facts that seem neutral to me (the act of stating who's on the board doesn't imply bias), I'd like to re-add the table. Comments? Feco 29 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)

I agree. Including the information seems useful, especially since some of the directors have wikipedia articles already, and completely NPOV. Gary D Robson 29 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)

I agree as well. At the very least, there should be a separate article for Wal-Mart's directors and officers linked from the Wal-Mart article. Having nothing there at all leaves a void. I suggest adding them back in here, and if there's enough opposition, breaking out to a related linked article (but still have the most prominent officers and their compensation here.) Un focused 29 June 2005 23:53 (UTC)

I also agree. I am apalled at how this article seems to be actively manipulated to remove factual content. Wal-Mart should just change their policies and behaviors and salaries etc., rather than trying to censor facts about their store. Using anonymous editors too, to hide their obvious tampering. Pedant 2005 June 30 18:24 (UTC)

I disagree. An encyclopedia is a place you go to find good general background on a topic, not extremely detailed information of interest only to a tiny percentage of readers. It makes an article burdensome for a casual user. BTW, such information was not included on three companies I arbitrarily pulled up on wikipedia to compare.

Criticism of Wal-Mart

The criticism section "got so large it was moved to a separate article" then the article Criticism of Wal-Mart was merged with the Wal-Mart article, but the content was drastically excised. Or censored. Can someone tell me how to obtain the missing text? Or when this occured? This article seems to be becoming a problem again, with the obvious censorship of anything critical to Wal-Mart. Comments ? Pedant 2005 June 30 18:21 (UTC)

Click the link Criticism of Wal-Mart, then once you've been redirected back to the main Wal-Mart article, you'll see "Redirected from Criticism of Wal-Mart" at the top of the page. Click Criticism of Wal-Mart there, and you'll be on the redirect page. From there, have a look at the history tab to see the edit history of the article as a separate entity. Do be careful to resurrect only referenced, properly cited data and you'll have less trouble with people objecting to your inserts.

You can insert whatever you feel is appropriate, but for best results getting something to "stick", it has to be referenced, cited, and generally agreed to be appropriate for the article. Because this is a high profile article, I think you'll find that as time goes on, less and less data that is unreferenced will stay. (Which should be the case for all Wikipedia articles.)

I hope that once you understand where the content is, you'll stop referring to the lack of it in the main article as censorship. That's unnecessarily inflammatory. --Un focused 30 June 2005 22:11 (UTC)

I added a bit to the local instences of community opposition (or whatever it's called) about some people in Asheville NC partially destroying a Wal-mart under construction.

Employees working off the clock

I've changed this paragraph to reflect the current company policy. It's against policy to work off the clock. Its the first thing you're told when you go to Day 1 Orientation. Your first task when you show up is to fill out a time adjustment sheet, stating the time you arrived. When you are at Wal-Mart, you are paid regardless if you are training or performing work. I have known associates that were disciplined for not filling out time adjustment sheets in the quantity of FIVE MINUTES (they were leaving and a customer asked them a question, according to policy, this is working and you should be paid).--Txredcoat 6 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

I don't think their official, stated policy was ever in question. The problem is that in many stores there have been numerous, widespread violations of this policy, resulting in a de facto policy in which there is an expectation that associates will work off-the-clock. The criticisms should be characterized as such. If anything, discplining the associates for working off-the-clock seems to reinforce the impression that the managers who sometimes pressure them into doing it are never held responsible. — mjb 7 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Your statement is completely rational. As far as your view that managers are not held responsible, this is quite false. The door swings both ways in this case, as Associates who work off the clock are disciplined, as well as any management that may have asked/coerced/etc. the associate to violate the policy. Believe me, management is held to a high standard when it comes to policy enforcement. Again, I do understand your statement and find it rational. The only thing I can do is to try and clarify these misconceptions. As with all jobs, there are good things and bad things. Believe me, if something comes up that is completely true, I'm not going to deny it. If anything (and if I can legally do it) I will try to bring the full situation to light. However, in this case, what had been reported was incomplete. Yes, this has happened before, but the company has taken the responsibility to correct these actions.--Txredcoat 8 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)